1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Nkossa Barge

Home Forums Archive Structure Designs Nkossa Barge

This topic contains 48 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of ellmer - http://yook3.com ellmer – http://yook3.com 2 years, 5 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 49 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #11718
    Avatar of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    Nkossa is a great example of something the size TSI wants on the cheap. Remember, unlike early oil rigs which can be sunk in a storm, TSI wants something that can take a perfect storm and a rogue wave at the same time and stay up.

    As for the low road, Wil’s already got one… the concrete sub. Sure, his sub is WAY too small for my family to live in but it’s a proof of concept. No one else except for maybe Vince has got to this point. Add in the affordability (since the model gives Wil a price point he’s comfortable with) that is unmatched in other designs and the relative ease of use and comfort level the sub affords, that’s a winner.

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #11721
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    came only 6 years after the commissioning of the “Ocean Ranger”. And it was deadly.

    Rig:

    ODECO Ocean Ranger Semi-Submersible

    Date:

    15 Feb 1982

    Location:

    Well J-34, Hibernia Field, North Atlantic

    Operator:

    Mobil

    Fatalities:

    84

    Introduction

    The Ocean Ranger was built for ODECO by Mitsubishu, Japan in 1976 and was one of the largest semi-subs working offshore in the early 1980s. It was approved for ‘unrestricted ocean operations’ and was designed to withstand extremely harsh conditions at sea, including 100 knot winds and 110 foot waves.

    Capsize

    In February of 1982, the rig was on hire to Mobil and was drilling the J-34 well in the Hibernia Field, about 166 miles east of Newfoundland. On the night of 14th February, a major Atlantic storm was forecast and the rigs in the Hibernia Field, including the Ranger, prepared for the worsening weather by hanging-off the drillpipe in the well and by disconnecting the rigs from the sub-sea stacks. At about 1900 hours local time, the nearby Sedco 706 experienced a large, powerful wave which damaged some items on deck, including the loss of a life raft. Soon after, radio transmissions from the Ocean Ranger were heard, describing a broken window and water in the ballast control room, with discussions on how best to repair the damage.

    At 0052 hours local time, on 15th February, a MAYDAY call was sent out from the Ocean Ranger, noting a severe port list to the rig and requesting immediate assistance. The standby vessel, the Seaforth Highlander was requested to come in close as countermeasures against the 10-15 degree list were proving ineffective. At 0130 hours local time, the Ocean Ranger transmitted its last message: ‘There will be no further radio communications from the Ocean Ranger. We are going to lifeboat stations’. In the middle of the night, in the midst of atrocious winter weather, the crew abandoned the rig at around 0130 hours. The rig remained afloat for another 90 minutes, sinking between 0307 hours and 0313 hours local time.

    #11722
    Avatar of Miguel-Lamas
    Miguel-Lamas
    Participant

    Wil, do you know under wich Classification Society NKossa Barge was built?? I am trying to find it but I am not able.

    Have you drawings or schemes of it?

    Thank you for your help.

    Miguel

    #11723
    Avatar of Miguel-Lamas
    Miguel-Lamas
    Participant

    Wil, do you know under wich Classification Society NKossa Barge was built?? I am trying to find it but I am not able.

    Have you drawings or schemes of it?

    Thank you for your help.

    Miguel

    #11724
    Avatar of Miguel-Lamas
    Miguel-Lamas
    Participant

    Wil, do you know under wich Classification Society NKossa Barge was built?? I am trying to find it but I am not able.

    Have you drawings or schemes of it?

    Thank you for your help.

    Miguel

    #11725
    Avatar of Miguel-Lamas
    Miguel-Lamas
    Participant

    Wil, do you know under wich Classification Society NKossa Barge was built?? I am trying to find it but I am not able.

    Have you drawings or schemes of it?

    Thank you for your help.

    Miguel

    #11727

    The barge will be exploited by ELF Aquitaine -the largest French industrial group -as floating support to produce oil at the Nkossa petroleum field in Congo. Bouygues and Bouygues Offshore were responsible for the vessel’s design and construction.

    I am not aware of any classification – in fact i do not know of any classification society that do classify concrete barges or vessels of any kind, or has even a set of rules developed for doing so, or has any plans in that direction.

    It seems also little necessary to develop that for a classification society as concrete building is well covered in all civil engineering codes – so IF classification societies will go some day for including concrete in their universe they will just adopt the civil engineering codes as usual.

    Getting a classification stamp is an asset for a container transporter as it brings low insurance quotes for container freight. I would be surprised if the structure as a whole would be third party ensured – so what would the benefit of classing be in first place? – even if it where possible – and as far as i know – it is not…but i am not a ship class handling expert either …

    Classing in its very nature means get a certification that your ship is just another build of a endless series of old fashioned hulls built in old fashioned way from old fashioned material, similar to all other ships of its “class” like one egg to another – so if you are classed the insurance quote is easy to determinate as the risk is known.

    The idea to even try to class something that is brand new, never done before, unique in its kind, is a bit like putting edges on a circle – so i would assume nkossa is not classed – would make sense to me… i would rather expect that the class rules for future concrete barges (comming out in a decade or two) will be written to the nkossa specifications.

    Classification Societies write “old fashioned decade old engineering knowledge into rule and code sets” – they delay to absorb the newest developments and they do it on purpose waiting until the “new” has become “widley implemented standard”.

    They also carter to a specific customer group which is insurances and ocean freight – so i would expect that we will have to wait many decades until we might be able to class something like a seastead –

    Probably we need to build it (dozend of times) make it engineering mainstream first – and then knock on their door and ask for a “seastead classification” that is a universe apart from cruiseship classification.

    Wil

    #11730
    Avatar of Miguel-Lamas
    Miguel-Lamas
    Participant

    Hi Wil !! I found something! It seems that the classification society was Bureau Veritas:

    http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/index.cfm?id=s0004128

    They worked in close cooperation with Bouygues Offshore:

    http://www.kgu.or.kr/download.php?tb=bbs_017&fn=Marchand.pdf&rn=Marchand.pdf

    Normally when you want to put a new floating concept on the sea, you need an insurance, and the insurance will require a classification society behind the project. Also for a seastead will be needed. In fact Clubstead is also designed under class rules. It is explained in a blog post:

    http://www.seasteading.org/blogs/engineering/2010/03/15/seasteading-imo-and-class

    Also for concrete structures:

    3.3.- SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONCRETE STRUCTURES
    There are standards for Offshore Concrete Structures in some classification societies. For example, in DNV: DNV-OS-C502 Offshore Concrete Structures. It can be used for: “Floating concrete structures for production of oil/gas. The structure may be of any type floating structure, i.e. Tension leg platform (TLP), Column stabilised units and Barge type units”.

    #11733
    Avatar of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    Octavian is right. The low road approach is designed for a single family to float out but seasteading is about society. A family is not a society. However, society when broken down to it’s core operating units are composed entirely of families, not individuals, but families. For the benefits of dynamic geography to be realized within society they must be applied at the lowest levels. In America right now we see a set of actions appropriate for businesses (which must be composed of multiple unrelated individuals by law) and another for the ‘people’… something I wish to keep seasteading from becoming.

    So, once you’ve selected your low road of choice… float out on it. Once a few of us are floating, we’ll select a spot to raft up and spend a few days congregating. Octavian can show us his fishing rig, Wil can demonstrate how he can make concrete on the open sea, Vince’ll bring out a souped up mini-walker he uses for recreation and we can all share dinner and drinks with a pretty view of the fishies on my sub. Maybe a few of the TSI guys will come along to witness the first ‘stead-up’ on the open ocean. With word of a new hurricane developing nearby, we all shake hands and part ways within minutes.

    It’s the dream. Maybe in a couple of years we’ll pull it off. Once we do, some larger ‘stead’ may become a reality… because we just created a market that could benefit from it. I can see Wil’s floating dry dock fit that niche. The core of the floating society would still be these smaller units… a beautful amalgam of various vessels. When storms came along, we’d break-up for a couple of days… some would skirt the storm, others would comfortably submerge, while some of the larger builds might weather the storm… then we’d all agree on where to meet-up again.

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #11732
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    this dialog regarding classification of a seastead is related to insurance, it would be highly recommended that the seastead to be build @ +100A1 Lloyd’s Standard.

    Certification and Classification at Lloyd’s Register of Shipping

    Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (which is not Lloyd’s of London, the insurance company) is a classification organization that classifies or “rates” vessels including yachts for insurance purposes, assigning a risk management classification ranging up to the highest “Lloyd’s +100A1″ (the “+” sign is read as “Maltese, an insurance standard). Such a “classification rating” (called “Lloyd’s Classification”) requires continuous inspection by a Lloyd’s surveyor from the initial laying up of the hull through the vessel construction and finally, through the entire life of the vessel to keep it “in classification”, as a real Lloyd’s classification is an ongoing legal statement that a vessel is current in its survey and has met all required maintenance standards of Lloyd’s. This class is used for an ongoing safety rating in the purchase of insurance.

    While expensive, the +100A certification is “golden”, specially when it comes to insure a “newly constructed” vessel,

    #11735
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Sound like a good plan. And a good plan should be implemented. But implementation seems to be our weakest point, so far, and always killed our otherwise good plans…. Therefore we should find the reason for that and correct it. Personally I think that the lack of implementation has very little to do with us, in general. What I mean by “us” (the so called low roaders), is our determination, commitment, skill, finances. We all have that in us. I would venture to say that the problem is pure and simple physical distance between us, because the reverse psychology of the statement is deemed to be true.

    Abstract.

    If, Octavian, Vince, PJ, Will, Mellvar plus few others “low roaders” would had been living in the same town by the water, it would be inconceivable to me not to have “something” going by now, already in the water. I mean,… even a beat up, cheap ass houseboats surrounded by floats and anchored 50 yards from shore, just for the heck of the symbolism behind it,…It is almost imposible for me to belive that we wouldn’t have had @ least that!

    But as we stand by now, I’m in Florida, PJ- have no idea where you live, Mellvar in Tennessee, Will in Columbia, Vince in Anguilla, TSI in San Francisco, etc, and we all “congregate” on line @ TSI, to whom, by the way, we should always salute for hosting us and putting up with our occasional ranting.

    If this is the problem, then what’s the solution? How do we correct this? You tell me.

    Because if we don’t, the implementation process will continue to suck and we’ll be living “rent free” @ TSI for ever… Or, until they’ll get tired of our freeloader’s asses squattering around here and justifiably, one day, they’ll kick us out.

    And by the way, all cards on the table now. With all due respect, gentlemen, our performance as “low roaders” is very poor,…it actualy sucks. Mostly because during all this time we’ve been here we couldnt find that common denominator to organize ourselves and start something. In all fairness, as we complain about TSI’s “performance”, I am really surprised that they didn’t fire back asking one obvious question: “What have YOU GUYS done, other than talking?”

    #11739

    ocean, i am doing it – at the moment i am building a pylon seastead, a modular raft up platform, a submarine seastead all at the same time. I just returned from the building sites and things are going well.

    The pylon seastead is floating well and has about 2m diameter so far – we will build it to some 6m and use it for touristic purpose, we wanted to develop a method that allows building pylon seasteads on a smaller scale (as the rion-antirion project) and we have done that.

    The modular flat raft platform is also floating it is now 8 cubes (4x2m) some 4 tons of displacement and we have have 18 cubes in the production line – our goal is to grow platforms at a rate of 1 squaremeter per day with the current installation and staff.

    On a smaller scale it looks quite similar to the nkossa project (a chambered concrete float) but it is scaleable and capeable of continious growth.

    The submarine seastead is 200 tons of displacement 18×4,6m we have it on the waterfront ready to launch after a 150m movement over land. The reason we have it not yet launched is most of all political – not eager to inspire the wrong segments, want to keep anybody in comfort zone.

    To enable the possibility for like minded individuals around the world to be part of our projects we founded European Submarine Structures AB with Headquater in Stockholm Sweden – and a subsidiary for research and development in cartagena colombia.

    Henrik Kindblom and I would be glad to talk with individuals who want to join our project as investors, shareholders, in development, cooperation, as friends, advisors or in any other contribution.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11743
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    I have to admit that my post had a bit of a rhetoric tone. Not much @ all directed to individual efforts, but mostly to the collective effort. A call for greater unity and action as a collective. I can only imagine what an infusion of solid capital from like minded investors would mean to your ongoing projects. Or mine….

    Anyway. The pylon seastead,… is it spar-like, free floating, yeah? The reason I am asking is because I really did like that Sea Orbiter design, which is @ its fundamental roots a spar (or pylon) but with elongated, oval overall hull design. I remember watching the wave tank test video,…remarkable seakeeping, with the exeption of the bobbing up and down. In comparison, under the same wave simulations, a raft-like structure, kitefloat for example, would be dipping the nose and be wet, taking spray all over the bow, but with less bobbing. Its a give and take. I might have come across as “stuck up” on raft-like structures, but that is not true @ all. I am just being practical. It’s known, proven, let’s not reeinvent the wheel sort of concept. But the truth of the matter is that the “perfect” seasteading design is still out there,…yet to be discovered. It might have some to do with “demand in the seasteading marketplace”. Some of it. But what if we are overlooking something more important? And I am walking in the dark here, because I have no clue, no data, zilch, on the subject if anybody has ever experimented or done a study on the effects of living @ sea for extended periods of time on the brain, physiology, methabolism of the human body.

    It might be a stupid topic of my part, since I don’t know. But what I know is that the most I’ve been out @ sea was abot 55 days. When I first steped on that dock, I was walking like a “dranken sailor” while being dead sober. My brain was still @ sea and trying to compensate and the stillnes of the “terra firma” was sending mixed messeges. And it lasted for few days as symptoms of loss of apetite, spacial comfusion, disequilibrum, persisted.

    Well, the whole premise of seasteading is dwelling @ sea,… for a lifetime. Do we know anything about this? How long did anybody lived @ sea? It is a proven fact that after a day out @ sea fishing or sailing we feel “tired”, because the brain is trying to adjust the body to a vertical position, thus giving every muscle in our body a subconscient hell of a workout. What will happens after 1, 2, 5 years of that? What happens to a pregnant women’s fetus while @ sea, always moving? How are the babies gonna come out? Does anybody have a clue?

    The reason I am asking is because those unknowns have a lot to do with structure design. Since we don’t know, then we’ll be “guinea pigs” and then the design should better be “terra firm” like, very stable. Mass (a lots of it) is one way to achieve that. How about a hybrid spar-raft design? Any thoughts?

    #11747

    Pastor_Jason wrote:
    ….Once a few of us are floating, we’ll select a spot to raft up and spend a few days congregating…

    -Jason

    It has been TSI general line that a raft up of heavy structures on the open ocean is not possible due to the forces between the floats could reach a magnitude similar to the weight of the seasteads.

    Nkossa is teaching here a different lession in fact the Nkossa barge is free floating but attached to a pipe that is fixed to the seabed so it is moving relative to the pipe just equal as two seasteads connecting on open sea would do.

    the mooring point is connected to the barge with a long flexible truss/pipe structure that is somewhat rigid but also somewhat flexible. Just the same principle as the “gangway” when you make shore connection from a ship. Obviously it IS possible to use that kind of connections in the high seas and do so permanent – and they are obviously NOT designed for taking forces of the magnitude of the barge weight.

    So jason i believe that we can raft up 60km off shore. Nkossa is doing it. Interesting that they do not need a breakwater, no artificial lagoon, similar to the waterworld concept, they connect a barge to firm ground and a ship docking at the barge at the same time – both connections are concepts that have been percieved as “necessary to further investigate if possible at all in the high seas” in the TSI universe.

    What concerns connections i would also suggest to look to the sea launch concept that handles connection between a semisubmersible platform and a ship in the open ocean in a similar way.

    So jason – i think your vision is a possible future.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    Europen Submarine Structures

    #11751
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Nkossa might not be the best example here, because she is not rafted up to 4 other Nkossas,….

    I do concur that we can raft up anything, not matter how big or small, not only 30 nm (aprox. 60 km) offshore but also 1500 nm offshore, or anywhere offshore, up to a “certain degree of sea state”.

    “It has been TSI general line that a raft up of heavy structures on the open ocean is not possible due to the forces between the floats could reach a magnitude similar to the weight of the seasteads.” Hmmmmmmm,…. Their assumption was based on a study made by Eelco, in which he proved mathematically that the force created by the vertical acceleration exercised upon one rafted up seastead mass as gravitational weight, will indeed reach magnitudes far beyond the structural resistance of the material (other then titanum-in my book) that the “other” raft up seastead(s) are build of.

    Simply put it, one seastead cannot support the weight of another (or few other) seasteads in a raft up situation. This was taken for granted by TSI, and the modularity was dismissed, without realizing the following facts:

    1. Yes, Eelco was definately right with his calculus, but only for extreme, certain sea state conditions.
    2. The sea state conditions are not absolute numbers, but relative to their “manifestation”. A bit hard to explain,…if you haven’t been there. Example. Beaufort scale: Wind=50kn, Wave Height=30 ft, >>> Storm. This would be the abstract. But how does this condition of the sea “manifest” themself? The abstract doesn’t say nothing about it. Is it a “choppy” sea? Or is it a long swell? With other words, do this 30 ft. waves have a short wavelength or a long one? Because its a hellova difference for the same given abstract! It has a lot to do with the depth of the water you’re in. Shallow-choppy, deep-long swell. 5 seastead rafted up in choppy 30 footers, will get pounded a bit, but no problemo. 5 seasteads rafted up surfing up on long 30 footers, nope. Time to disconnect and ride it “every seastead for itself”.(’cause this is what Eelco was referring to)
    3. The raft-up was presumed as permanent. Why??? So we can risk all the lives and all the seasteads if we get hit by a big one??? NOOOOOOO. No and NO. The raft up should be semi-permanent, therefore able to disconnect @ a “certain degree of sea state”. 5 seasteads “for themselves”, in salvage distance. 1 has problems, 4 will send rescue crews, pick up the people, and try to salvage that seastead. If can do, ok, if not, abandon rescue and let it go. We have 4 left and everybody’s alive. Should be thankful. Such is life @ sea.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 49 total)

The forum ‘Structure Designs’ is closed to new topics and replies.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate